A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning

Abstract

Internationally, educational stakeholders are concerned with the high levels of student disengagement, evidenced by early school leaving, poor student behaviour, and low levels of academic achievement. The solution, student engagement, is a contested concept, theorised in a variety of different ways within academic literature. To further understand this concept, a phenomenographic study was conducted to map secondary school teachers’ conceptions of student engagement. Six qualitatively different ways of understanding student engagement were found. This research indicates that teachers do not hold similar understandings of what student engagement means. If the concept of engagement is to become educationally fruitful, the term must be more explicitly defined in educational research and government policy documents to promote shared understandings amongst stakeholder groups.

Preview

References

Ainley, M. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationships with strategy use and school achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Åkerlind, G. (2002).Principles and Practice in Phenomenographic Research. Paper presented at the Current Issues in Phenomenography Conference, Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar

Brewster, A., & Bowen, G. (2004). Teacher support and school engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk of school failure.Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carrington, V. (2002).The middle years of schooling in Queensland: A way forward. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement: Communicating respect and care for students in urban high schools.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(4), 106–117.Google Scholar

Hyrkas, K., & Paunonen-Ilmonen. (2001). The effects of clinical supervision on the quality of care: Examining the results of team supervision.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jordan, W. J., & Nettles, S. M. (1999).How Students Invest Their Time out of School: Effects on School Engagement, Life Chances and Achievement (No. 29). Washington DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.Google Scholar

Lamb, S., Dwyer, P., & Wyn, J. (2000).Non-Completion of School in Australia: The Changing Patterns of Participation and Outcomes. Camberwell, Vic: The Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2005).Issues Paper 6: Students 15–19 Years Old: Increasing Engagement. Retrieved January 4, 2006 from New South Wales Government, Department of Education and Training Web site: http://www.det.nsw.edu.au/reviews/futuresproject/issuespapers/stdnt_15to19yrs.htmGoogle Scholar

Wehlage, G. G., & Smith, G. A. (1992). Building new programs for students at risk. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.),Student Engagement and Academic Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Yu, C. (2003).Meeting the Workforce Demands of Hong Kong’s New Era in Secondary Business Education: Business Teachers’ Conceptions of Students’ Competence and Choice of Teaching Strategies. Unpublished PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.Google Scholar